Hussey v. Hussey, S01A0123.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. S01A0123.,S01A0123. |
| Citation | 545 S.E.2d 880,273 Ga. 735 |
| Parties | HUSSEY v. HUSSEY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gary P. Bunch, Atlanta, for appellant.
Edward G. Hussey, Lithia Springs, pro se.
An application to appeal was granted in this matter to consider whether the trial court erred by permitting the appellee to open and conclude the closing arguments made to the jury on the question of whether appellant was entitled to receive alimony and damages. Because appellant bore the burden of proof on all issues submitted to the jury, appellant was entitled to open and conclude the closing arguments. Therefore, we reverse.
Appellee Edward Hussey ("Mr. Hussey") filed for divorce from appellant Vanessa Hussey ("Ms. Hussey"). In his petition, Mr. Hussey sought divorce and a division of the marital property. Ms. Hussey counterclaimed for divorce and also sought alimony and damages for battery, as well as punitive damages. The matter was tried before a jury, and after the submission of all the evidence, but before closing arguments, Ms. Hussy moved for a directed verdict as to the granting of a divorce. Mr. Hussey did not oppose the motion, and a divorce was granted. At roughly this same time, the parties agreed to a division of marital property.
Ms. Hussey's request for alimony and her claims for damages were submitted to the jury. At this stage of the proceeding, Mr. Hussey did not seek any relief from Ms. Hussey. Over Ms. Hussey's objection, the trial court allowed Mr. Hussey to open and conclude the closing argument.
The jury awarded Ms. Hussey damages, as she requested, but denied her request for alimony. Ms. Hussey sought a discretionary appeal to this Court, which was granted in order that we might consider (1) whether Ms. Hussey should have been allowed to open and conclude closing arguments, and (2) whether a party that is otherwise entitled to open and conclude closing argument waives that right by failing to assert it before the opposing party testifies in opposition to the claim asserted.
1. "`The party on whom the burden of proof rests has the right to open and conclude the cause before the jury.'"1 Because Ms. Hussey bore the burden of proof on all of the issues that were submitted to the jury, she was entitled to open and conclude the closing arguments. After a directed verdict was entered on Ms. Hussey's motion and a divorce was granted, the only issues remaining in this matter concerned Ms. Hussey's claims for alimony and damages. Those issues were asserted in Ms. Hussey's counterclaim, and the burden of proof as to those issues was entirely upon Ms. Hussey, and not upon Mr. Hussey.
The only issues submitted to the jury were Ms. Hussey's claim for alimony and her claims for damages. On each of those issues, she bore the burden of proof. The trial court, in explaining its decision to allow Mr. Hussey to open and conclude closing arguments, incorrectly reasoned that Mr. Hussey bore the burden of proving that Ms. Hussey was not entitled to receive alimony. Mr. Hussey's position that his ex-wife was not entitled to alimony did not, as the trial court thought, remove her burden of proof to establish her entitlement to alimony. An attempt to negate a claim for alimony does not shift the burden of proof to the party contesting alimony. Accordingly, the general rule recounted above—that the party with the burden of proof has the right to open and conclude closing arguments—applied in this matter. Ms. Hussey was entitled to open and conclude closing arguments, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
2. Ms. Hussey did not waive her right to open and conclude closing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TGM Ashley Lakes, Inc. v. Jennings, No. A03A1401.
...the right to open and conclude closing arguments at the time that the other party testifies." (Footnote omitted.) Hussey v. Hussey, 273 Ga. 735, 737(2), 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001); Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Campbell, 56 Ga.App. 400(1), 192 S.E. 640 (1937).2 In this case, at the time that the plain......
-
Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Range, A05A1399.
...open and close in a case in which a husband sued for divorce and his wife counterclaimed for divorce and alimony. Hussey v. Hussey, 273 Ga. 735, 736(1), 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001). At the close of evidence, the trial court granted the wife's motion for a directed verdict on the divorce, leaving ......
-
Moore v. Moore
...party on whom the burden of proof rests has the right to open and conclude the cause before the jury."' [Cit.]" Hussey v. Hussey, 273 Ga. 735, 736(1), 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001). See also OCGA § Therefore, we conclude that a trial court has the discretion to realign a plaintiff as a defendant wh......
-
Gilmer County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Spence.
...“[t]he party on whom the burden of proof rests has the right to open and conclude the cause before the jury.” Hussey v. Hussey, 273 Ga. 735, 736(1), 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001), quoting Standridge v. Standridge, 224 Ga. 102, 103, 160 S.E.2d 377 (1968); see also OCGA § 9–10–186 (where the burden o......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...at 242, 539 S.E.2d at 810 (Benham, C.J. & Carley, J., concurring). 23. . Id. at 244, 539 S.E.2d at 811 (Hunstein, J., dissenting). 24. . 273 Ga. 735, 545 S.E.2d 880 (2001). 25. . Id. at 735-36, 545 s.e.2d at 881-82. 26. . Id. at 736, 545 s.e.2d at 881-82. 27. . Id., 545 s.e.2d at 882. 28. .......